Borsuk's conjecture

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description

An example of a hexagon cut into three pieces of smaller diameter.

Template:Unsolved

The Borsuk problem in geometry, for historical reasonsTemplate:Refn incorrectly called Borsuk's conjecture, is a question in discrete geometry. It is named after Karol Borsuk.

Problem

In 1932, Karol Borsuk showed[1] that an ordinary 3-dimensional ball in Euclidean space can be easily dissected into 4 solids, each of which has a smaller diameter than the ball, and generally Template:Mvar-dimensional ball can be covered with Template:Math compact sets of diameters smaller than the ball. At the same time he proved that Template:Mvar subsets are not enough in general. The proof is based on the Borsuk–Ulam theorem. That led Borsuk to a general question:[1]

Template:Blockquote

The question was answered in the positive in the following cases:

The problem was finally solved in 1993 by Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai, who showed that the general answer to Borsuk's question is Template:Em.[8] They claim that their construction shows that Template:Math pieces do not suffice for Template:Math and for each Template:Math. However, as pointed out by Bernulf Weißbach,[9] the first part of this claim is in fact false. But after improving a suboptimal conclusion within the corresponding derivation, one can indeed verify one of the constructed point sets as a counterexample for Template:Math (as well as all higher dimensions up to 1560).[10]

Their result was improved in 2003 by Hinrichs and Richter, who constructed finite sets for Template:Math, which cannot be partitioned into Template:Math parts of smaller diameter.[11]

In 2013, Andriy V. Bondarenko had shown that Borsuk's conjecture is false for all Template:Math.[12] Shortly after, Thomas Jenrich derived a 64-dimensional counterexample from Bondarenko's construction, giving the best bound up to now.[13][14]

Apart from finding the minimum number Template:Mvar of dimensions such that the number of pieces Template:Math, mathematicians are interested in finding the general behavior of the function Template:Math. Kahn and Kalai show that in general (that is, for Template:Mvar sufficiently large), one needs α(n)(1.2)n many pieces. They also quote the upper bound by Oded Schramm, who showed that for every Template:Mvar, if Template:Mvar is sufficiently large, α(n)(3/2+ε)n.[15] The correct order of magnitude of Template:Math is still unknown.[16] However, it is conjectured that there is a constant Template:Math such that Template:Math for all Template:Math.

Oded Schramm also worked in a related question, a body K of constant width is said to have effective radius r if Vol(K)=rnVol(𝔹n), where 𝔹n is the unit ball in n, he proved the lower bound 3+2/(n+1)1rn, where rn is the smallest effective radius of a body of constant width 2 in n and asked if there exists ϵ>0 such that rn1ϵ for all n2,[17][18] that is if the gap between the volumes of the smallest and largest constant-width bodies grows exponentially. In 2024 a preprint by Arman, Bondarenko, Nazarov, Prymak, Radchenko reported to have answered this question in the affirmative giving a construction that satisfies Vol(K)(0.9)nVol(𝔹n).[19][20][21]

See also

Note

Template:Reflist

References

Template:Reflist

Further reading